Leon

Greetings Tim the Enchanter!

Sounds like your distributor is out 180 degrees. Thinking practically, a camshaft can't be 180 degrees out from the crankshaft, it just moves your place in the engine cycle by two strokes. Your options are to either move the spark plug wires around correctly and use a timing gun to properly set ignition timing, or to drop the oil pump and rotate the distributor. I'd say the former is pretty simple to do...

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. Now go away, before I taunt you a second time!

Take a look at the FSM, section BE-2. Download FSM at xenons30.com, under references.

Interesting... Does your suspension bottom out a lot with so little bump travel? I plan to use my Z for weekend/autoX and I dont want to be smacking the bump stop all the time. Maybe I'll just trim the bump stop and see how it drives. Anyone else have similar problems? EDIT: That's what the comparison of my 260Z and '71 240Z struts looks like. The spring perch sits higher on the 240Z ones. Thanks for the photos!

I'm rebuilding the suspension (bushings, springs, shocks, etc.) on my 9/73 260Z and I just ran into something unsettling. I installed Tokico HPs and Eibachs which are both listed as compatible with the 240Z and early 260Z. When I put in the HP inserts, the gland nuts almost bottomed out. They are tightened but very close to the strut top even with the gland nut spacer. But this is not the main problem. While I was putting the springs on I noticed that my 260Z spring perch sits noticeably lower than the 240Z struts I have to compare with. I decided to go on anyway, because the springs are listed as the same for the 240/260Z (early). I installed the struts on the car (ARB or steering rack uninstalled, but that doesn't make a difference) and I have virtually no bump travel with the ES bump stop in there. Cutting or removing the bump stop will help but not by much, as I think it would still bottom out all the time. The springs are installed correctly, with part number 6305.001 in front. Now I'm thinking someone installed later struts but I measured the strut ID and it was equal to my 240Z strut tube! The 240Z/early 260Z inserts fit snugly into both my 260Z and 240Z strut tubes. The difference being that the 260Z lower spring perch sits lower than the 240Z spring perch. I don't remember there being much of a difference in overall height. At this point, I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Are there three types of stock S30 struts? It does not look like someone cut the perch and welded it lower. I suppose I can get longer springs, but what is the issue here? I've been searching and haven't seen this problem. Here are some photos for reference:

Not to get more off-topic, but you said N/A engines not N/A L-series engines. Still, an N/A L-series is perfectly capable of exceeding 100% VE. Why wouldn't it be? Back to the other topic, the SUs are just fine for the engine in relatively stock form. I agree that the Holley is not any improvement at all, and I would think it would actually detract from performance in terms of mixture distribution when compared to dual carbs. The variation in runner length is greater than the SUs which leads to more uneven AFR across the cylinders. Onto the original topic, what does it matter how your engine compares to stock? If it performs to your liking, then enjoy it.

NA engines are perfectly capable of obtaining 100% VE through resonance tuning.

Pm'd.

Wow, great attention to detail! That first start will bring so much satisfaction, make sure to post a video. I got tired of seeing my Z on jackstands for 2 years, so I bought a running one! This stuff takes a lot of perseverance, the photos show the countless hours of dedication that you put into your Z.

http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/36272-viper-v10-engine-in-a-z/page__hl__viper__st__20

This is what I was assuming he meant. Obviously, you will lose bump travel if you cut the perch off and weld it in lower. What I was thinking was that he wanted to cut below the perch and drop the perch along with the gland packing nut threads. Although now I realize that is exactly what strut sectioning is. The shocks have to be shorter in this case, but this is well documented. For some reason my interpretation of what he was talking about was that he wanted to section the struts without me realizing that I'm talking about sectioning struts. Misunderstanding on my part, carry on.

I don't see how you lose suspension travel when you cut below the perch and weld it on lower. Explain? You would lose ground clearance, yes, but suspension travel does not change. The relative distance between the strut tube top and the shock mount stay the same. The difference between coilovers and this is that there is no height adjustment. You also need to think about spring (and damper) selection because you'll likely need stiffer springs depending on how much ground clearance you decide to eliminate. BTW, struts are typically sectioned when a shorter spring takes away too much bump travel.

I have a copy of this book, I assume it is very similar to the original.

You can use MMS if you don't have labeled hardware. You'll have new, shiny fasteners labeled and ready to go! If (when) I embark on a basket-case project, I will give them consideration especially if the PO didn't label anything.

It's not. As for sound clips and muffler options, search and ye shall find.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying that.

That's a valid point Tony and it's a good transition into a deeper discussion, but when talking max lift (as the PO was) stock rocker ratio is 1.48.

This multiplier is called the "rocker ratio." Searching that will yield more results. FWIW, the stock rocker ratio is 1.48.

It's not a ZX, but my Accord coupe participates in quite a few Z-related activities! This is but one of them.

Search. There are threads on this detailing such work.

Interesting discussion, but I want to add that when, for example, accelerating out of a corner, you feel something (a "force") pulling you back into your seat. Whether you describe the force as something that comes from engine torque or engine power is irrelevant, both are meters by which engine performance can be measured. You can describe engines with meters like BMEP, specific power, power density, mean piston speed, VE, blah blah blah ad infinitum. "Feelings" are very hard things to analyze since they are subjective and very complex in their mechanisms. You can say that you're feeling torque or that you're feeling power and you'd both be right.

Nothing about my argument has changed and what I said still holds true. It will understeer in steady state corners, exactly as I said originally in the post you quoted.

Once again, all I'm saying is that in a long sweeper the outside tire should be turned in more than the inside. That's it. There are myriad other things to worry about when racing around a track, as I've been saying. If the car is in a corner where one tire is more loaded than the other, then it might benefit from toe-in, and I saw that happen quite a bit in every video. One big reason for setting static toe-out is to compensate for the effects of negative camber, and the Z sure has a bit of that when it's lowered. By the way, the ratio of the steering wheel turning to the road wheel turning involves more than the steering box, you also have to factor in knuckle length.

You missed some important points in my post. I'll quote them from the previous posts for clarification. Italics are my posts. To state this even simpler, you don't have to be on a super speedway to have large radius turns as you assume. Any corner where you're going "fast," turn the wheel, weight transfers (transient response), and you hold the wheel as the car turns is a steady state corner. This will happen on any track that has sweeping turns, and most road courses do. In this case, with a typical tire (as shown in Milliken), the car will understeer more. How dramatic of an effect is it? Probably not very, but for someone squeezing out every last hundredth it might just matter. Notice I say nothing else. I'm not talking about whether a certain setting will make the car slower or faster around the track as a whole or how it will drive in an autoX. This is a cold hard fact and what it should be used for is for someone to be able to make a more well informed decision, e.g. you're at a track with a bunch of sweepers, how do you set up your suspension, etc. The second bold statement is self-explanatory. Seems like you missed it. Let me also repeat my last post. There are a lot of different types of tires out there. To sum it up (again), here is another part of my last post: